On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:52:39AM -0400, Aditya Chadha wrote: > So, now the world is not coming to an end? Damnit. There's quacks on > both sides, who are you supposed to believe?
Of course teotwawki still looms, the only question is: when? Geologically, the question is never if, only when. > But, seriously, if reality is based on perception and you can't trust Reality is not based on perception. Only your model of it is. > your source of information then how do you make a sound judgement that > doesn't warp your reality? I think global warming is the smaller > problem as opposed to this evil mind control that we need to battle! Er. I much prefer the grape kind, I'm afraid. > This is another case of scientific facts being basically unverifiable > by the lay person (especially in the case of something as complicated > as climate), so you have to place your trust in one of the noted > authorities to give you the right information. The fault lies squarely with the layperson, though. Science is not authoritorian. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
